Disposed

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019) v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC13 Apr 2022WP/119/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging permission granted to fell Teak trees on disputed land pending a related pending writ. The Court directed the tree-feller to deposit Rs. 4,00,000 as bank guarantee to facilitate timber removal, payable to the petitioner if they succeed in the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Permission to remove timber allowed upon deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 bank guarantee; petitioner entitled to amount if they win pending suit.

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

wRlT PETITION NO: 119 OF 2o2o

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019), Rep. by its President, Uday Alagani, S/o. Sriramulu, 1-1 , Anantharam, Bhongir Yadadri District, R/o. H-No.42-545/24, M.J. Colony, Moula-Ali, ,rO.f.?rb#i,o*=*

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The State of Telangana, Forest Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The District Forest Officer/ Forest Divisional Officer, Yadadri Bhuavangiri District, Water, Land and Tree Authorty.

¶10

3 V.Sravan Kumar, S/o. Mallesh, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Plot No.69, Maruthinagar, Near Jai Jawani Colony, Hyderabad.

¶11

...RES'.NDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in granting permission in favour of the Respondent No.3, for cutting the Teak Trees in the plots belonging to the Petitioners Association, vide Ref.No.TEP/3205/0018594, dated'1011212019, despite receipt of the complaint dated 2711112019, and also taking steps to grant permission to the Respondent No.3, to transport the Teak trees, despite receipt of another complaint dated 2311212019, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2004, and consequently set aside the permission granted in favour of the Respondent No.3, vide Ref.No.TEP/3205/0018594, dated 1011212019, and not to grant any permission to the Respondent No.3, for transportation of reak rrees from the petitioners Association plots i.e, from the plots of the Petitioners Association i.e., in Sy.No.277lAA, situated Anantharam Village, Bhuvanagiri [,4andal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District

¶13

IANO: 1OF2 020

¶14

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct the} Respondent No.2 not to^{grant permissionto the Respondent No.3, for transportation} of the Teak trees^{from the plots of the PetitionersAssociation i.e.,inSy.No.277lAA,} situated Anantharam^{Village,Bhuvanagiri Mandal,Yadadri BhuvanagiriDistrict,} pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶16

IA NO 2 0F 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the} order^passed by the Respondent^{No.2, vide Ref.No.TEP/3205/0018594,dated} 10t12t2019

¶18

lA NO: 3 OF 2020:

¶19

Between:

¶20

V.Sravan Kumar, S/o. Mallesh,^{Agedabout 30 years, Rl/o. PlotNo.69,} Maruthinagar, Near Jai Jawani^{Colony,HYderabad.}

¶21

r,TtoNER/RESpoNDENT No.3.

¶22

AND

¶23

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners^{Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019),Rep.} by its President, Uday Alagani,^{S/o. Sriramulu, 1-1, Anantharam' Bhongir} Yad ad ri District, Rvo. H-No.42-54512A,^{Ivl. J. Colony, Moula-Ali,nrd} "f3p3f,i,o*.*

¶24

The State of Telangana, Forest Department,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary,} Hvderabad.

¶25

3 The District Forest Officer/ Forest Divisional^{Officer, Yadadri BhuavangiriDistrict,} Water, Land and Tree Authorty.

¶26

...RESpoNoENrs

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court maybe pleasedto vacatethe} lnterim Order dated 03.01.2020^passed in LA No. 1 of 2020^{in WP No. 119of 2020} Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS

¶28

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR FORESTS

¶29

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: SRI B. CHANDRASEN^REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶30

M/s. CHANDRASEN LAW ASSOCIATES

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

THE HON'BI-E SRI IUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No. 11.9 of 2020

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for respondent Nos.1 and Z, and Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy,, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3

¶37

Seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in granting perrnission alde Ref.No.TEP/3205/0018594, dated 10.12.2079, in favour of respondent No.3 for felling the Teak Trees in the ptots belonging to the petitioner - Association, despite receipt of the complaint dated 27.11.201.9, and takirrg steps to grant permission to the respondent No.3 to transport the teak trees, despite receipt of another complaint dated 23.'1.2.2019, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Telangana Water, Land and Trees Rules, 2004, the petitioner - Association has filed the present writ petition.

¶38

-fhe learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that earlier the petitionel herein filed a writ petition alde W.P.No.25832 oI 2019 challenging the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the Joint Collector, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Dishict, and the same is pending acljudication before this Court, and therefore, the permission granted by the respondent No.2 to the responclent No.3 to fell the trees, which are the subject matier of the said writ petition, will

.\ I

cause great hardship and irreparable loss to^{the petitioner, and therefore,} prays to set aside the impugned permission.

¶44

Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel^appearing on^{behalf of tl-re} respondent No.3 has stated that the^{petitionerhas lost all the cases filed by} him i.e., before the Revenue Divisional Officer^{and the} Joint^{Collectoranci} even in W.P.No.25832 of 201'9 filed by the^{petitioner, no interim olders are} granted till date, and therefore, prays this Court^{to dismiss the present writ} petition.

¶45

The learned Government Pleader for^{Forests has stated that based on} the request made by the respondent No.3, the official^{respondentshave} granted the impugned permission, strictly in^{accordancewith 1aw, and the} official respondents have nothing to do^{with the internal disputes betweenthe} petitioner and the respondent No.3. The learned Government^{Pleader has} further stated that the total anticipated timber^{from 294 trees, for which the} permission has been granted, is approxima lely^{21.2 cubic meters,and the} value of the same is around Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶46

When queried by this Court as whether the respondent^{No.3is willing} to offer any Bank Guarantee for the value of the^{wood, the learnedSenior} Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has stated^{that the respondent} No.3 has incurred an amount of approximately^{Rs.2,50,00)O/- for obtainingthe} necessary permission for felling the trees^{from the ForestDepartmentand also} for transporting the said timber. The learned Senior^{Counselhas further stated} -

¶47

¶48

\ that the respondent No.3 is w ring to furnish a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

¶49

¶50

Admittedly, the hees, which have been felled, form part and parcel of the subject lands of w.p.No.25g32 of 2019, which is pending adjudication of the rights of the parties before this Court. In case, the said writ petition is allowed, the petitioner will naturaily suffer ross due to the felring of the trees which were grown there.

¶51

Having regard to the above, this Court is of the pima facie opinion that ends of justice wourd be met if the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to furnish a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/_ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the officiar respondents. on furnishing such Bank Guarantee, the officiar respondents shalr permit the respondent No.3 to take away the wood, for which permission has been granted. The Bank Guarantee will be kept alive during the pendency of w.p.No.25g32 of 2079 and in case the writ petitioner succeeds in the said writ petition, the writ petitioner wilr be entitled to the said amount.

¶52

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶53

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There

¶54

shall be no order as to costs.

//TRUE^COPY//

^'.'$lI^llffi[lHiR

SECTTON^OFFTCER

To,

iti!#ff 'si':#"#f.,f,T:**,T.::'r"?3rnili;#"1?'?'o3Li''

¶60

¶61

/( H:331i",P.l5fi5?:?'ii'g'$'^:31*i?JJ:ii'3::':f'L"1ffi^ina'o" 6. Two CD^CoPies 7. One SPare^CoPY MBC TR ry

¶62

HIGH COURT

¶63

DATED: 1310412022

¶64

c',<br><br>, r05 MAY 2,ii2
\riv,
<

¶65

ORDER

¶66

WP.No.119 of 2020

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶68

WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

o f

¶70

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019) v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Leela Homes Plot Owners Welfare Association, (Regd. No.405/2019) v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sk.Firoju Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

M/s Karthikeya Infra Developers Vs The State of Telangana

S.Vishnavi Vs The State of Telagnana and 2 others

Smt. Pendem Narayanamma Vs Sri Rv Karnan

Ravuri Jenna Reddy and 4 others Vs Shri Rajeevgandhi Hanumanthu I.A.S and another

Gouthe Sevantha Bai Vs The State of Telangana